On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 17:59 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:39 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > TRUNCATE foo;
> > TRUNCATE foo;
> >
> > works well.
> >
> > So why do we need
> >
> > TRUNCATE foo, foo;
>
> For the sake of completeness? Having "TRUNCATE foo, foo" fail would be
> rather inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what exactly?
If a proposal to support this was made on hackers, it would be laughed
away. It is not required for functionality, usability, standards
compliance, backwards compatibility, robustness, performance, internal
coding simplicity, portability, marketing or external compatibility. For
what reason would we do it? Nobody has said.
And as I pointed out, other commands fail in similar circumstances.
Consistency is required, but consistency in making balanced judgements
about feature additions.
Our users will be surprised to find this was at the top of our list
ahead of other patches during a commit fest, other agreed TODO items and
other proposals from users.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
